A Turning Point? Geneva Clears Path For Future Agreements . . .

November 24, 1985|By Joseph Kraft, Los Angeles Times Syndicate

WASHINGTON — The emperor of the East and the emperor of the West came down from the mountain in headlong retreat from nasty rhetoric. The question now is whether they can sustain at home the retreat forward they instituted abroad.

Gorbachev, with a clear line of advance laid out for his coming Party Congress, faces a relatively easy task. Reagan, because he has failed to translate popularity into political action, has a trickier job.

Personal togetherness distinguished Geneva from all previous summits. In a strange, even weird, departure from the form sheets, the two exponents of rival systems clung to each other. They walked together and talked together. They wined together and dined together. These private sessions gave off a glow of civility.

Whatever business was done -- and it may not have been much -- neither side can comfortably return to the invective that earlier marked the Big Two dialogue. Having supped with the devil and gone back for more, Reagan has to stop prating about the ''evil empire.'' He himself said the tone of the private sessions was ''cordial.'' In the joint statement the United States signed on to the principle that the superpowers could work together ''for the benefit of mankind.''

Gorbachev, for his part, can no longer rail as if Reagan were a Hitlerite monster. He may have unloaded in his press conference on the American project for a space-based nuclear defense, but he also acknowledged that in the private talks there had been ''no table pounding.'' Pictures of the two leaders smiling at each other appeared in the official Soviet press. There is a spirit of Geneva '85.

Negative tests of the spirit come very quickly. It will be surprising if the Soviets unilaterally break the moratoriums they have announced on deploying intermediate-range missiles and on testing of nuclear weapons underground and in space. It will be equally surprising if the United States decides to break the SALT 2 treaty when it expires Jan. 1.

On all those matters, Geneva cleared a path for future accommodation. In the joint statement, both countries endorsed the goal of 50 percent cuts in offensive nuclear weapons. Both acknowledged a need for negotiations on anti- missile defenses. Both accepted the principle of a separate deal on the intermediate-range missiles based in Europe. Summits for '86 and '87 announced in the joint statement assure continued engagement on arms control.

In the interim, however, both leaders face sticky scenes at home. Fulfilling the promise of Geneva depends in large measure on how the two men bring the summit to bear on their domestic business.

To get the Soviet economy moving again, Gorbachev has set guidelines for faster economic growth. While the exact mix remains unclear, heavy reliance is placed on increased discipline and on a redirection of investment toward high- technology items -- many of them purchased abroad. But that emphasis meets resistance from party veterans.

At the Party Congress in February, however, Gorbachev is now in strong position to contain the protests. He has been anointed by Reagan as an opposite number -- a big step up for a leader chosen only by other party colleagues.

The United States, in contrast, suffers from acute political gridlock. Despite Reagan's extraordinary personal popularity, a bipartisan majority in both Houses came together against the domestic spending reductions proposed in his 1986 budget. The bipartisan majority leans, instead, toward closing the federal deficit by a modest tax rise and big cuts in defense spending. Hence the consensus around the Gramm-Rudman budget-balancing bill.

Success at the summit offers Reagan a chance to regain the initiative. He told the Congress Thursday night that firmness paid off at Geneva, and that it was necessary to ''keep America strong.''

But there is a wider opening. Reagan can kill Gramm-Rudman as a threat to defense. He can then insist on more domestic cuts. As bait he can intimate that once the last nickel has been squeezed from social spending, he would support a tax increase. But does he see the opening? Or like it?

Whatever the answers, Geneva marked an important turning point. Both superpowers stopped short on the road to trouble. Gorbachev moved to a tack he can hold for years. Reagan still has to choose between a new start and merely basking in the limelight of personal triumph.